New Mexico delivers first courtroom loss to Meta over child safety case

A jury in Santa Fe on Tuesday ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties after determining that the company misled users about the safety of its platforms and put children at risk.

The office of New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez described the outcome as a “watershed moment for every parent concerned about what could happen to their kids when they go online,” according to a statement released shortly after the verdict.

Following a six-week trial, the jury concluded that Meta was liable on both counts brought by the state under its Unfair Practices Act. The penalty, calculated at $5,000 per violation — the maximum permitted under the law — may appear relatively small for a company with a market valuation of around $1.5 trillion. However, the significance of the ruling lies in being the first jury verdict of its kind against Meta for alleged harm to young users.

“Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and misrepresented what they knew to the public,” Torrez said in a statement after the decision. “Today, the jury joined families, educators, and child safety experts in saying enough is enough.”

The case stemmed from a 2023 undercover investigation conducted by the state. Investigators created decoy accounts on Facebook and Instagram, posing as users under the age of 14. These accounts reportedly received explicit content and were approached by several men in New Mexico, some of whom were later arrested in May 2024. Two individuals were apprehended at a motel where they believed they were meeting a 12-year-old girl, based on their interactions with the decoy profiles.

The findings from this operation formed the foundation of the state’s case. Evidence presented during the trial — including internal company documents and testimony from former employees — suggested that warnings from staff and external child safety experts about risks on the platforms were raised multiple times but were not adequately addressed.

Key testimony came from individuals who had previously worked at Meta. Arturo Béjar, who spent six years at the company starting in 2009, told the court about his attempts to alert leadership after his 14-year-old daughter received unwanted advances on Instagram. He also stated that the same algorithms used for ad targeting could facilitate harmful connections.

“The product is very good at connecting people with interests,” Béjar said, “and if your interest is little girls, it will be really good at connecting you with little girls.”

Another former executive, Brian Boland, who worked at the company for nearly 12 years, testified that by the time he left in 2020, he did not believe safety was a top priority for CEO Mark Zuckerberg or then-COO Sheryl Sandberg.

Zuckerberg himself was deposed as part of the proceedings, and excerpts from his testimony were presented to jurors earlier this month. He described research into the potential addictive nature of Meta’s platforms as “inconclusive,” a position challenged by the state, which pointed to internal studies suggesting certain features were designed to increase engagement by triggering dopamine responses.

When asked whether parents have a right to know if a product used by their children is addictive, Zuckerberg responded that the issue involved multiple considerations. He added that he and his wife personally evaluate products before allowing their children to use them and monitor their usage, noting that their children are younger.

Meta has indicated it will appeal the decision. A company spokesperson said it disagrees with the verdict and emphasised that it continues to invest in safety measures across its platforms.

The New Mexico case is one of several legal challenges facing Meta. The company, along with YouTube, is also involved in a separate trial in Los Angeles concerning allegations that their platforms are addictive and harmful to young users.

That case, brought by a plaintiff identified as K.G.M., a 20-year-old California woman, alleges that prolonged exposure to social media during childhood led to anxiety, depression, and body image issues. TikTok and Snap were also initially named as defendants but reached settlements before the trial began.

Earlier this week, the judge overseeing the Los Angeles proceedings instructed jurors to continue deliberations after they indicated difficulty reaching a verdict on one of the defendants, raising the possibility of a partial retrial.

Meanwhile, a second phase of the New Mexico case is scheduled to begin on May 4. This phase, a bench trial focused on public nuisance claims, could lead to additional penalties and court-ordered changes to Meta’s platforms, potentially including stricter age-verification systems and enhanced protections for minors.

In this phase, the state is not arguing that Meta violated a specific consumer protection statute but rather asserting that the company’s platforms have broadly harmed the health and safety of New Mexico residents.